> > > > > True. This description of the project contains already a lot of > > the ideas we are shaking on the list. > > > > There are still concerns about the fact that some of the software > > we use are big hairballs and enforce technical lock-ins. Eg. the Linux > > kernel and the X- Window system.
This is going to be a bit of a rant, and while I think it is "on topic", some might not. I'm old school UNIX: VAX, Solaris, Digital and so on. Linux is nice, but it really is just the "Johnny-come-lately" as they used to say. When I make these comments about Linux, please understand where I am coming from. What you are describing to me, is the ham-fisted attitude of Linux, that Linux is somehow self-contained, and not part of a larger whole. Everyone else can be damned. There is a lot of resistance to the "old guard" notion that Linux should follow any standard beyond its own. Linux does not care about portability anymore. The whole X/Wayland thing is yet another example. No one in their sane mind denies that X isn't a total (bleep) disaster. The source code is such a mess that not even the people who maintain it can unscramble it, and that is not exaggerating. There are blocks of code that no one knows why they were added, but if they are removed it breaks compatibly with things. A lot of the screen rendering is out of date and very slow. That is why DRI was added. DRI bypasses a lot of the cruft to render things directly, but since the core of X is essentially network transparent, you are still wasting a lot of overhead on network calls that could be done far more efficiently if X were redesigned. What X really needs is to be gutted: a complete rewrite, while providing a compatibility layer for X11. Rather than do that, the Linux crowd chose to go with Wayland, which could be described as much the same thing. Fair enough, and even reasonable. At least it would be, except for the fact that Wayland is designed to work only on KMS, which makes it dependent on Linux. (Deliberate sarcasm: what a shock.) > There's also the issue of non-free binary blobs, like > > proprietary firmwares and drivers. We must accept some of these for > > the sake of having a working OS. On that we agree. The simple fact of the world is that even if someone like NVidia or AMD WANTS to make a completely open driver, they can't. The video cards use technology that has been licensed from someone else, and those license agreements prevent them from disclosing all of the details needed to make a driver that works as well as the blobs. The only way to get around that would be to get legal consent from all parties, and that is not going to happen. It's a shame that the patent system works as it does, but that is life. As for the Linux fans who demand completely open drivers, they are going to have a very long wait: probably on the order of 20 years for the patents to expire. > > > > BUT, everywhere there is choice, the solution(s) in the spirit of > > KISS and UNIX shall be preferred and the others rejected. Only when we > > haven't the choice will we install the non-KISS/non-UNIX. > > > > For the moment, the only replacement for X-Window, Wayland is > > certainly also a big hairball; this may simply mean that it can't be > > otherwise. Same for the Linux kernel. > > > > But for system startup/shutdown and service supervision, there's > > a host of solutions. This also means systemd violates KISS and UNIX > > not by necessity but either by inconsideration or by intention. I say this with respect, but I think you are dreaming, Diedler. That spirit of KISS is dying with the minority of the "old school UNIX" and Linux is becoming something completely unrecognizable. In another decade or so, I do not expect Linux to be compatible with anyone else. Another example is GTK. It is being "molded" around Gnome 3's needs, and has subsequently been abandoned by projects who switch to Qt. Right now, Linux userspace is being "molded" around systemd. While init systems like systemd are arguably not covered by POSIX, following an interface standard is the only way to prevent source code from being tied to things like systemd. Unfortunately, no one seems to consider that a benefit. More than once, I've heard calls for Linux to completely abandon POSIX in favor of doing its own thing. To me, that sounds exactly like the same arguments that Microsoft used to make regarding Windows when they backed out of the POSIX standard in 2000. We all know what happened there: code lock-in. How the wheel turns. Linux has become its own worst enemy, because it has become too successful, just as Microsoft once did. I would have a lot less objection to a lot of what the majority of the Linux community does if they would learn to play nice, with everyone else and just work with POSIX rather than think that they can ignore it all the time. T.J. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
